Hi John, We are scientists, but we are also citizens (hopefully) informed by our history. Mass movements are a tried and true way for a populace to push for change, especially during times when certain populations have felt that their voice is not being heard by those in power. Delegitimizing this method of expression is common and easy nowadays with the help of corporate media, whose execs more often than not have alignments with those being called out by the public. Delegitimizing protest is also dangerous and requires being pretty blind to history.
Such wonders as the weekend, child labor laws, the minimum wage, women’s suffrage, civil rights for folks of color, & more were all brought to you and me by public dissent and protest! And while our society likes to heroize individuals like Dr. MLK as if there was one messianic figure who led us all to the light, all of these changes are the result of huge numbers of imperfect people demanding them and working consistently. Most mass movements (the successful ones) do in fact have well-thought out and established complaints and goals that they are striving for, if you pay attention and listen to those involved. If politicians choose to ignore science, I would argue that it is not the scientist’s responsibility to present themselves as politically inert in all facets to be taken seriously. If your research and methods are sound and supported by the scientific community, there is no reason for your integrity to be questioned by uninformed politicians. The science itself is objective. Whether corrupt or ignorant individuals will plug their ears, we can’t control, other than by speaking out and persistently revealing the truth. Silencing academics has never gotten a society very far. In fact, it’s one step in the development of fascism. I would encourage any activist to schedule meetings with their representatives, but protest is an additional and valid form of expression – we can have both. Next time you find yourself mildly inconvenienced by a protest, or stuck behind a highway blockade, consider not dismissing the crowd as a bunch of raucous hooligans. They’re loud because they want to be heard, and maybe they’re angry for good reason. And not every participant has the ability to have an artisan-made protest sign. cardboard works. Next time, try and listen to what they’re working for and why – you might find that you agree with them. And you can still tell your representatives all about it. Respectfully, A.E. > On Apr 18, 2017, at 14:10, John A. <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to know if anyone else is concerned whether scientists par= > ticipating in a march, which is inherently political, may further erode pub= > lic confidence in science as objective and nonpartisan. > > It seems to me that given the current climate, any march in protest of = > specific policies runs the risk of being seen=E2=80=94or misrepresented=E2= > =80=94as an attack on the majority party, which would only further reinforc= > e certain stereotypes of scientists, and make it all the easier for politic= > ians to dismiss them as just another special-interest group that can be saf= > ely ignored. > > The fact is that a march presents no rational arguments, invites no con= > structive dialogue and changes no minds. The format of a march lends itsel= > f to confrontation and exclusion=E2=80=94the very opposite of the successfu= > l engagement which science so desperately needs. Worse, it surrenders any = > message to interpretation by the media, and may ultimately serve to trivial= > ize the very issues the marchers had thought to support. > > I have to wonder at the effect on science policy, if every person who h= > ad planned to march instead scheduled meetings with their senator, represen= > tative and local state delegate. A face-to-face meeting in a quiet office = > or conference room, without the noise and shouting of a protest march, has = > a far better chance to be effective. Politicians can always shrug off a th= > irty-second clip on the news, especially if it shows chanting, drumming and= > handwritten cardboard signs. But when local constituents schedule an appo= > intment and present their concerns like professionals, the information has = > a better chance of being considered and remembered. > > Not all politicians will make themselves available, to their discredit;= > but for those that do, a face-to-face meeting opens the prospect of real d= > ialogue and follow-up contacts, with the potential for long-term exchange. = > I would suggest that this sort of patient, personal and nonconfrontational= > approach may be far more valuable to the scientific community than partici= > pating in a brief event which is structurally incapable of presenting compl= > ex concerns with the nuance they deserve. > > = > Respectfully, > > = > J. A.
